rtrace

"I have been pushing my 30D to do what I want, but it's not enough."

 

"But now, my skills surpass the abilities of the 30D, and I need a machine that can keep up."

 

Reading this, I'm curious what you think are the limits you are finding in the 30D. Is it AF speed? FPS? 1.6x crop? ISO noise? Customization? What? If you can point them out, then it will be easier to say which camera would perhaps be better.

Ellis, the proof is in one's eyes. However, ACR's reds are indeed problematic. They were under tungsten light until 4.4. They still are under daylight. There is a big compromise. If you calibrate for a good red, the skin tone patch and hence skin tones look wrong. And so on and so forth, but that is the largest problem for me. You can search the web, Adobe's own forums, etc. for examples. There is plenty out there.

 

 

You don't need to be a rocket scientist, or any kind of scientist, to know how to use Capture NX or DPP. They are just not *efficient* in comparison with Bridge/ACR, Lightroom, C1, etc. in how I use them and how many others do.

JPEG 75% of the time. Why would I not shoot RAW? [in my opinion] - Third party RAW converters like ACR/Lightroom have bad colors (that no calibration can correct in all lighting scenarios [in my experience]), while the better ones (Capture NX & Canon DPP) are ridiculous to work with on large shoots [in my experience]. I never understood this "if I could control the light" business to be honest. To me it translates to "if I could produce consistent exposures...". White Balance is easy to correct on JPEGs these days. I shoot RAW for personal things, since I may want to do heavy stuff in post, but for weddings and such, no point [for me].

 

Bogdan

"The D3 steals most of the thunder from the 1D3 for less money."

 

Not true. 1D3 is cheaper.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082208canoneos1dmkiin.asp

Oh, didn't see you already have the 85 1.2. In that case yes the 35 1.4 with the 85 1.2 will be good. Just make sure to use 2 bodies.

 

Still the 24-70 is way more versatile. The 35 1.4 is sharper (but this only matters to pixel peepers), and 2 stops faster. But DOF control will be tricky. You should know form the 85 1.2.

It's simple really.

 

1. 24-70 2.8 if you want a zoom

2. 35 1.4 & 85 1.8 if you want primes (35 alone is not enough for portraits)

LOL, at the same time Adobe realized that their tungsten profiles had been wrong with red hues/staturation for almost 5 years and fixed them in the 4.4 profiles. 1/2 way there.....if they could also fix their daylight profile..

Mark - you are one clueless guy. Nikon's D3 was in the hands of quite a few before it was announced. Same for Canon.

Keith I think is correct.

 

Mark - get over it dude. Join forces with Rob. What evidence you ask? Read Rob's report. Canon wasn't cooperating as he'd have liked them to in the past so now... Why is he NOT analyzing other cameras? He's wasting his time and spreading FUD. Go shoot some birds now - learn the camera first.

 

Bogdan

IMO there was a clear/reproducable problem under *certain* conditions that Rob stumbled upon by chance. By chance! But good for him. Canon fixed that - after back and forth bickering. Now Rob is looking at the latest "blue dot" cameras with a microscope - and saying it's not *that* good in these conditions, etc. Blue tennis courts, blah blah, etc. To me, the issue has been fixed. It's over. Now it's just Rob vs. Canon - some agenda from the past, etc. and nitpicking. I don't trust the guy's motives anymore. It seems he will NEVER be happy because what transpired in the past, and because Canon doesn't want to talk to him. He's biased.

 

I have the Nikon D3. Has Rob analyzed this (or any other camera) to this extent? NO he has NOT. If he does, I bet he can find an issue with every DSLR. He's wasting his time still whining about the 1DMKIII.

"Based on "look" not just "it can", I disagree. I don't like the plastic look of ISO 100- 200 on some digital cameras, and don't want the camera selecting it for me. I also don't like a shortened dynamic range, so I don't want it selecting a higher ISO either. There are few scenes where these cameras do not perform well at around 500 to 800. More if shooting in dimmer available light. Less, (but not much less) if you need a shallow DOF in bright light."

 

I meant Marc not Mark as in MarkIII LOL BTW.

 

I hear you, but Nikon's auto-iso implementation is superior to Canon's (or at least more intuitive). I can set the lowest and highest ISO I want, and any shutter, etc. So it's simple. If you don't like 400, set the low to 500/640 or whatever and the high to whatever as well. But to be honest, when you're shooting available light at 1600 and above, the dynamic range is never big anyway. And it will never go that high if the light is good. It will use the lowest ISO. So I don't see the problem.

Of course it's COMPLETELY doable, especially if you are using flash. I shot a wedding at 90% ISO 1600 with just a tad flash last year with the 5D, and the D3 is even cleaner. I did use 1/50 - 1/60 at most though.

 

Plus there are plenty of wedding photogs who shoot available light and 1600 is cake. It's why it's there.

 

Mark - median ISO is a thing of the past if you use the auto-ISO feature :)

 

I'm not sure why people buy these incredible cameras and then still are afraid to push. Did you shoot film at 800? OK, then you can shoo the D3 at LEAST at 1600.

 

Bogdan

Marc, 16 and 32GB, but the slower Ultra II SDHC

"What's the fascination with losing the .xmp files? Not knocking it, just curious."

 

I think it's just nicer to have all the info embedded in the RAW file. It's cleaner. DPP does this and Capture NX too. I'm starting to shoot more RAW, but DNG is a waste for me. I'll wait for a real RAW standard, until then cameras will be just as supported as DNG.

You gotta pinch here and there for that $8k lol

Depends where on vacation I'm going. If somewhere picturesque, I take my regular DSLR. So that's most of the time. I just will take one zoom though. If some small thing, whatever. Why NOT use the best tools? My personal pictures, are more important to me than stuff I get paid to shoot.

The answer was simply economics. Nothing to do whatsoever with sports photographers benefiting from a 1.3x sensor, just like 1.6x sensors weren't conceived with any advantage in mind except price. When Canon came out with their DSLRs, the FF sensor was most expensive and the 1.3 and 1.6 less so. Also it was not easy initially to do many FPS with a FF sensor. I think the 1.3 sensor will be gone in the next version of the 1D, in place of a lower MP (lower than the 1Ds that is), fast FPS, FF sensor, to compete with Nikon's D3.

Been a member since 2004. Love it. What Marc said. Don't find it US centric. Many UK members. And you can edit your posts.. This forum has an 80s feel to it. Can't edit posts, new posts don't move a thread up, etc.

Weird. The only thing I can think of is that the 1DMKIIn introduced the "Picture Styles", which the non-n 1DMKII didn't have. So dialing in settings to make the JPEGs look similar was probably tricky.

 

But the 1Ds/1DMKIII have the same menus/picture styles/parameters/settings so they should be very similar. Except for lower high ISO noise on the 1D and more MPs on the 1Ds.

 

Bogdan "Make Love not RAW" Urma

17-55 makes the most sense on a 1.6x sensor camera. There's no reason to worry to much about L vs non-L glass. Get the lens that you need to get the pictures you need. They are both 2.8 lenses, and the 17-55 may not be an L lens, but it's damn sharp. The 24-70 is an L lens, and what a crappy lens that is. In my time I went through 3-4 of them. So don't get too stuck on the L label IMO.

It's a question of one stop. The 16-35 has a one stop advantage. If you shoot wide open and available light, it's the clear winner. If you shoot stopped down, the 17-40 is the winner.

Marc, I'm curious to see if Zeiss comes out with some AF F mount lenses for Nikon. I'm not sure how well their Distagon and Planar MF lenses they came out with two years ago are selling. They are just limiting for me.

"IMHO the larger professional bodies like the D3 and the F5 make it easier to work with many lenses - esp the longer focal lengths."

 

It would be nice to have the *option* to add the booster/grip. Just like you did on the film cameras, and just like you do on the 40D/D300/5D/etc. Need more fps and support for a telephoto lens? Add the grip! Need primes and to travel with it? Take grip off. Makes all the sense in the world to me. The choice is yours, which is always a good thing.

Peter,

 

I would say the Nikon D3 is out to compete with the Canon 1DMKIII. They are both great at high ISOs, fast AF, pro bodies, etc. The D3 however is full frame, whereas the 1DMKIII is a 1.3x sensor. Then there are other differences - as I mentioned above.

 

 

The 5D seems to be in a class of its own - it's neither a pro body nor amateur. It's in-between. Some love it, some don't. The images are good though. I'm sure the next version will offer something good, but I don't think it will come out to compete with the D3.

 

Truth be told, I'd love a D3 the size of the 5D. Just like the F6! Or the Canon 1V. Let me add a booster if needed for more fps. Just like I can on the D300. Time will tell if this will happen.